SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) A third party is resisting the decree. The applicant in this application has stated that the defendant was in financial distress and, in order to save the defendant, an arrangement was entered into between the plaintiff, the defendant and the applicant by which the editor and employees of the applicant were allowed to run a newspaper from the suit premises since 2014 and the decree-holder allowed the applicant to function from the suit premises. It is contended that the decree-holder handed over possession and promised that it would execute necessary agreement and on that basis the applicant installed machinery and had obtained necessary registration. The applicant was completely unaware of a collusive decree obtained by the parties and only on 17th June 2017 the applicant became aware of the said decree.
(2.) The averments made in the petition apparently contradict the pleadings made by the applicant in the writ petition being WP No. 1379 of 2015. In the writ petition, the applicant stated that the application has registered in its name a daily Bengali newspaper "Khabar 365 Din". The said newspaper was initially launched by the defendant. The defendant closed down its business. Thereafter, by an arrangement alleged to have been entered into between the defendant and the applicant, the applicant started running the newspaper from the suit premises. The said arrangement was entered into in view of the financial and other difficulties entered by the defendant which prompted the defendant to close down the publication of the said newspaper. Under such circumstances, an arrangement was entered into between the defendant and the applicant by reason whereof the applicant was permitted to run the newspaper from the said property. On or about June 2015, the applicant came to learn from the representative of the defendant that a suit for eviction of the defendant had been filed by the plaintiff on the alleged ground that the defendant is in illegal possession of the said property after receipt of the notice of termination dated 5th January 2015 issued by the plaintiff. The applicant was further informed of an order dated 15th June 2015 passed in an interlocutory application filed in the suit in terms whereof the defendant was permitted to apply for installation of a separate meter with the CESC authorities who were directed to process the said application and install a meter at a place to be installed by the CESC authorities upon compliance of all other formalities. The applicant has been inducted and/or permitted to occupy the said property by the defendant. The writ petition was essentially filed for a separate meter connection as the owner had refused to allow the defendant to enjoy electricity due to arrears in payment of electricity dues.
(3.) The stand taken in the writ petition with regard to entry of the applicant in the premises is attempted to be improved in this application filed by the applicant now seeking an independent right in respect of the suit property. In this application, it is averred that the decree-holder handed over possession with a promise to execute a tenancy agreement in favour of the applicant which should have been within the knowledge of the applicant and had it been true it should have formed part of the pleading in the writ petition affirmed in December 2014.;